Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c > #396565

Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> I could write a macro like:
>
> #define ITERATE(var, from, to) for ((var) = (from); (var) < (to); (var)++)
>
> but then anyone reading the code has to understand both how C-style
> for loops work and how the ITERATE macro works.  Does the expansion
> use < or <=?  What happens if "to" is INT_MAX?  Did the author of
> the macro get everything right?

An advantage of using a macro is that these questions need be
answered only once, rather than at every place a for() loop
would appear.

> Now if someone else finds that such a macro makes things easier for
> them, that's fine.  But often, *in my opinion*, such macros make code
> harder to read for someone who knows C well.

Whether using a macro like ITERATE() makes code harder to read
or easier to read is a testable proposition, and as such it
deserves to be treated as a question of fact rather than as
a matter of opinion.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 03:47 -0800
  Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 04:21 -0800
    Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-02-04 23:40 +0000
      Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-05 08:10 +0100
        Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 11:30 +0200
        Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-02-05 15:21 +0000

csiph-web